Agenda - 09-19-2006-7b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Arange County Animal Services Sheltering Practices and Philosophies 4.3 proposition but aburden-and one that takes precious time away from pursuing the mission itself. But since Avanzino's speech during the "Kill/No Kill Controversy" workshop in Las Vegas in 1992, the world has continued to change. The public is, in many cases, more aware. "Twenty-five years of intensive spay/neuter campaigns and educational efforts have finally paid off-the numbers of puppies and kittens ending up at animal shelters has dropped dramatically in many communities," says HSl)S Senior Vice President Martha Armstrong, who started at the Memphis Humane Society in 1977. "For many organizations, the focus has changed: Behavior-related relinquishments have taken the place of the endless litters of baby animals, and shelters are responding accordingly-with proactive programs designed to keep animals from ever coming into their facilities in the first place." The animal protection field has arrived at an exciting crossroads, yet the field continues to spin its wheels on a semantics debate that, at this point, is only wasting fuel. There is validity to both sides of the argument: many who have adopted the "no kill" language echo Avanzino's words in that long-ago workshop, saying they are just t ,tying to define a goal that all shelters should be headed towards. And many veterans of the field still counter that ending the need for euthanasia has always been a goal, but that that fact is often lost on a public that doesn't see past the false dichotomy the words "no kill" create. But there are flashes of light at the end of the tunnel. In compiling a series on what it would really take to stop euthanizing healthy, adoptable animals, the editors of Animal Sheltering discovered something unexpected: people on the "no kill" side saying they have begun to curb their use of the term, and, on the other hand, people in open-admission shelters saying they have started communicating with "no kill" groups-even if it sometimes means enduring language they perceive to be hurtful or misleading. Almost universally, shelter directors who bristle at the words "no kill" also credit its proponents with igniting more discussion and creativity. Perhaps for the first time, many leaders of the animal care and control field are according legitimacy to some "no kill" groups, giving a seat at the table to those organizations that have listened to shelters' concerns and have started emphasizing more training, more cooperation, and greater understanding of the real issues of pet homelessness. And from the other side, acknowledgement of the essential role of animal care and control agencies has evolved in some communities from a mere nod in those agencies' direction to a public embrace. Both sides have grown tired of the bickering, and the framework of the argument is becoming stale. And no matter who it is and what their background, if someone is truly in this field for the right reasons, his take on the debate will always revert back to the question: "What's best for the animals?"